Disclaimer: This is an opinion article. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the position of the New Patriotic Party, the Judiciary, or any other institution mentioned.
By Hon. Lambert Appiah Rockson
Aspiring Parliamentary Candidate, NPP – Ablekuma South
NPP Communication Team Member
Public officials who occupy constitutionally sensitive offices must exercise a high degree of caution because their words can have consequences beyond their immediate intention.
The office of the Chief Justice is one such office.
Recent comments attributed to the Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Baffoe-Bonnie, during an engagement with the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), have prompted public discussion about the boundary between institutional engagement and political commentary. Reports suggest that the Chief Justice praised the performance of MIIF and other state-owned enterprises while questioning what Ghana had been doing over the previous eight years.
This article is not about denying the Chief Justice his personal views as a Ghanaian citizen. The more important question is whether comments from the holder of Ghana’s highest judicial office could reasonably create an impression of political alignment with the government of the day.
That concern deserves careful consideration.
Why restraint matters
When a politician speaks, the public generally understands that partisan interests may shape the statement. The same applies to ministers, government officials and opposition communicators.
The Chief Justice, however, occupies a different constitutional position. His public pronouncements can influence how citizens perceive the Judiciary and, by extension, how they interpret judicial decisions.
For that reason, the Judiciary must not only be independent; it must also be seen to be independent. Public confidence in the courts depends partly on the belief that judicial officers can act without fear, favour or political influence.
The risk of political interpretation
The political environment in Ghana is deeply competitive. Consequently, remarks that appear to praise one administration while questioning the record of another may be interpreted in partisan terms, even if that was not the speaker’s intention.
The issue, therefore, is not whether the Chief Justice intended to campaign for or against a political party. It is whether his comments could reasonably be understood in that way.
For the head of the Judiciary, perception matters. A statement that may appear harmless in another context can generate greater concern when it comes from the Chief Justice, particularly because political disputes and electoral matters may eventually come before the courts.
If litigants, political parties or sections of the public begin to question the neutrality of the Judiciary, the institution’s credibility could suffer. Such concerns should not be dismissed simply because no evidence has been presented that judicial decisions have been influenced.
A call for constitutional restraint
This position is not an attack on the Chief Justice or the Judiciary. Public institutions become stronger when citizens, journalists, lawyers, academics and political actors can raise respectful concerns about their conduct.
As an aspiring parliamentary candidate of the New Patriotic Party and a member of the party’s Communication Team, I acknowledge my political role and responsibilities. However, the protection of Ghana’s constitutional institutions must remain a shared national interest.
The Executive, Parliament and political parties have their respective mandates. The Judiciary has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution, administer justice, protect fundamental rights and hold public authorities accountable where the law requires it.
It may therefore be prudent for the leadership of the Judiciary to avoid comments that could be interpreted as political assessments of the performance of successive governments.
The Chief Justice can encourage state institutions to improve their performance without appearing to endorse a particular administration. He can speak about national development while maintaining the institutional distance expected of the Judiciary.
Ghana needs trusted referees
A democracy functions more effectively when its institutions are trusted by competing political sides. The Judiciary is an important referee in Ghana’s democratic system, especially when disputes involving constitutional interpretation, elections and public accountability reach the courts.
If either side begins to believe that the referee is favouring the other, confidence in the process may be weakened—even where no actual bias has been established.
That is why I respectfully urge the Chief Justice to exercise caution in future public engagements and to focus his public messaging on the administration of justice, judicial reform, access to justice and the protection of the rule of law.
He is not the Chief Justice of the NPP, the NDC or the government of the day. He is the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana.
That distinction should remain clear.
Ghana needs constitutional institutions that can retain public confidence regardless of which political party is in power. Protecting that confidence requires restraint from all public officials, especially those whose offices are expected to stand above partisan competition.
This is not an attempt to weaken the Chief Justice or the Judiciary. It is a call for vigilance in defence of judicial independence, institutional neutrality and public trust.
Lambert Appiah Rockson
Aspiring Parliamentary Candidate – NPP, Ablekuma South
NPP Communication Team Member
